1998
SUPREME COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The Supreme Court of Ghana dismissed the appeal brought by the plaintiff and co‑plaintiff over a disputed house and land at Madina, Accra. The plaintiff relied on a lease from the La Mantse (Exhibit A) and an alleged oral sale with Chief Seidu, the property’s original owner, premised on providing a Peugeot car as consideration. The Court, per Adjabeng J.S.C., found Exhibit A did not record any sale of the house and contradicted the plaintiff’s narrative, and the plaintiff’s testimony confirmed the oral arrangement was never completed. The Court rejected a late bid to rectify Exhibit A, holding rectification requires strong, irrefragable proof of mistake and a concluded agreement, which were absent. It also noted that the Seidu family had sold the property earlier to the 2nd defendant (Exhibit 13), who secured and retained judgment against the co‑plaintiff. With concurrent findings of fact in the lower courts and no compelling reason to disturb them, the Court affirmed the dismissal. Four Justices concurred in dismissal; Ampiah J.S.C. dissented.
AMPIAH J.S.C.:
This is an appeal from the decision of the Court of Appeal dismissing an appeal by the appellant herein against the decision of the High Court.
In this judgment, the appellants would be referred to simply as the ‘plaintiff’ and 'co-plaintiff’ and the respondent would similarly be referred to as the '2nd defendant'.
The lst defendant in the action, although served with the courts' processes did not enter appearance and did not take part in the proceedings. I may however have to refer to him occasionally in this my judgment.
In this appeal as it was in both the trial court and the Court of Appeal, references have been made to certain judgments which seem to have influenced the decisions of the Courts one way or the other. In my respectful view these cases (or judgments) seem to have confused the real issues before the court.
For a clearer view and proper understanding of the case, I think a brief history of the case as could be gathered from the pleadings and evidence may be necessary.
In 1976 or thereabout, one Chief Seidu, now deceased, decided to sell his house on a plot of land at Madina to the plaintiff. As the land on which the house was, belonged to the La Stool, Chief Seidu took the plaintiff to the La Manche for the necessary transfer to be made. According to the plaintiff, Chief Seidu informed her that he, "Chief Seidu was only a caretaker for the La Stool and so it was necessary to take me to the La Manche" They met the La Manche and his elders and a lease of the land with the house thereon was granted the plaintiff for a term of 50 years with an option for renewal. This was reduced into writing executed, stamped and duly registered as No. 4446/78. This document was tendered in Evidence as Exhibit A; it was dated 15th March, 1976. There seems to be no dispute with this statement of affairs for, in the 2nd defendant's amended statement of Defence, he averred,
"2. (a) In answer to paragraph 5 of the Statement of Claim 2nd defendant says that at the request of the plaintiff the late Chief Seidu caused the La Mantse to execute the said lease dated 15th March, 1976 in the name of the plaintiff on the mutual understanding and on condition that the plaintiff would use her own money to purchase a vehicle for the deceased. This arrangement fell through and so the lease was latently invalid, ineffectual and passed no interest to the defendant".
Of course, the 2nd defendant did not have any personal knowledge of the transaction between